scott halpern, "what do the data show about the influence of payment on participant perceptions...
Post on 15-Jan-2017
32 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
What do the data show about the influence of payment on participant
perceptions and behaviors?
Scott D. Halpern, M.D., Ph.D. Associate Professor of Medicine, Epidemiology, and Medical Ethics & Health Policy
Director, Fostering Improvement in End-of-Life Decision Science (FIELDS) program
Deputy Director, Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics (CHIBE)
1. Payment may be an undue inducement
2. Payment may be an unjust inducement
3. Payment may dissuade participant disclosure of contraindications
Conceptually coherent concerns that rest on empirically testable facts
Halpern SD. Amer J Med Sci 2011
Experimental survey studies refute these concerns (and suggest ethical virtues of payment)
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cigarette Smoking Among Adults and Trends in Smoking Cessation -- United States, 2008. MMWR 2009;58(44):1227-32.
142 hypertensive patients recruited from clinics
6 failed quiz 126 Patients
10 refused to participate due to time
Trial description & knowledge assessment
Vary payment offered ($100, $1000, $2000)
Vary risk (10%, 20%, 30% chance of side effects, e.g. vomitting)
Assess participation across 9 trials administered in random sequence
Halpern SD, et al. Arch Intern Med 2004; 164:801-3.
Model of Undue Inducement
Risk
% Willing to Participate
$0
$$$
$$$
Main Effect of Payment = Rational Tradeoff
Payment x Risk Interaction = “Blunted” risk evaluation (i.e., an undue inducement)
Incentives for RCTs: Undue inducement?
Payment: p = 0.001
Payment-by-risk interaction: p = 0.12
Halpern SD, et al. Arch Intern Med 2004; 164:801-3.
Undue inducement (kidneys)?
Payment (family): p = 0.31
Payment (waitlist): p < 0.001
Payment-by-risk interaction: p = 0.87
Halpern SD, et al. Ann Intern Med 2010; 152:358-65.
Model of Unjust Inducement
Payment offered
% Willing to Participate
Low-income
High-income
Payment x income interaction → lower-income patients preferentially influenced by money
Low-income
$0
Income:
p = 0.70
Payment-by-income interaction:
p = 0.09
Incentives for RCTs: Unjust inducement?
Halpern SD, et al. Arch Intern Med 2004; 164:801-3.
Unjust inducement (kidneys)?
Income:
p = 0.016
Payment-by-income interaction:
p = 0.49
Halpern SD, et al. Ann Intern Med 2010; 152:358-65.
Neglecting to inform about
adverse effects?
Bentley JP, Thacker PG. J Med Ethics 2004; 30: 293-8.
Are higher payments associated with different judgments of riskiness?
Are higher payments associated with the amount of time/effort spent seeking info about risk?
stimulation or (2) blood draws; and offered different payments ($25, $100, $1000)
Riskiness ratings
$25: 2 (0 – 4) $1000: 3 (1 – 5)
p < 0.05
Cryder et al. Soc Sci Med 2010; 70: 455-64
Higher incentives are associated with greater information seeking
Cryder et al. Soc Sci Med 2010; 70: 455-64
R01 CA197332 7/01/15 – 6/30/20
15000
1st consent: Study about attitudes toward research
Demographics; Economic Well-Being; Research attitudes questionnaire (all patients)
Randomization
Randomization
Patients identified as eligible for RTOG 1308. Patients shown video about trial.
Legend
Primary outcome Secondary outcomes Study processes and parent RCT outcomes
Clinical Outcomes
Assess risk perception and therapeutic misconception
Decision to sign 2nd consent form to enroll in parent RCT (RTOG 1308)
Review (but do not sign) 2nd consent Time spent reviewing 2nd consent form
Assess understanding of basic trial elements (all participants) and perceptions of coercion ($400 and $1200 arms)
Debriefing about incentives study and payment equalization
IMRT PBT
$1,200 $400 $0
Semi-structured interviews of patients who do not sign 2nd consent (selected equally among 3 incentive arms) [HOLD]
Outcomes & Recruitment Goals
• Primary Outcome: – Rate of consent to participate in the parent RCT
• Secondary Outcomes: – Patients’ research attitudes, motivations to participate or not, attention to
study details and risks, perceptions of research risks, therapeutic misconceptions, understanding of trial design, and health care system distrust.
• Target n= 576 – powered to rule out undue/unjust inducements • 44 months of recruitment • 3 incentive amounts: $0, 400, 1,200
top related